This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way, unstable,
and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the compiler will
continue to get support, no one in the community knows what the library support
will be like. I came across an article where even Python wasn't chosen for a
project because of the eminent release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and
Clojure for other complaints people have expressed about D.
-- http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and
I'm not claiming D is in the wrong in its chosen path. This shows that other
languages deal with similar issues, but is one thing for someone familiar with
a language to not choose it for a project than it is to get someone to look
into a new language.

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way,
unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the
compiler will continue to get support, no one in the community knows
what the library support will be like. I came across an article where
even Python wasn't chosen for a project because of the eminent
release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and Clojure for other
complaints people have expressed about D.
--
http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and
I'm not claiming D is in the wrong in its chosen path. This shows
that other languages deal with similar issues, but is one thing for
someone familiar with a language to not choose it for a project than
it is to get someone to look into a new language.

One of the comments in there:
"One of the greatest problems I found when trying Common Lisp was the
large number of implementations and the disorganization of the library
space. It is hard for a newcomer to decide which libraries are
available, which are maintained, which are dead."
You can't please everyone.
I also think his criticism of Python is invalid. He's got just what he
wants, Python 2.0, but complains it won't get improvements. Then he
complains when it gets improvements in the form of Python 3.0.
You just can't have it both ways.

One of the comments in there:
"One of the greatest problems I found when trying Common Lisp was the
large number of implementations and the disorganization of the library
space. It is hard for a newcomer to decide which libraries are
available, which are maintained, which are dead."
You can't please everyone.
I also think his criticism of Python is invalid. He's got just what he
wants, Python 2.0, but complains it won't get improvements. Then he
complains when it gets improvements in the form of Python 3.0.
You just can't have it both ways.

Well, part of the problem is that you can use all of those arguments
against D (That includes the complaint about Lisp). Maybe not if you
just look at D1 or just D2, and many times the complaints aren't as
big an issue as they are made out to be once you start using the
language. And yes, Lisp did seem an odd choice considering why he didn't
choose the one of the other languages.

Well, part of the problem is that you can use all of those arguments
against D (That includes the complaint about Lisp). Maybe not if you
just look at D1 or just D2, and many times the complaints aren't as
big an issue as they are made out to be once you start using the
language. And yes, Lisp did seem an odd choice considering why he didn't
choose the one of the other languages.

My take on this is he wanted to use Lisp and went looking for a
justification.
I have long experience with people who say "I won't use your product
because of X." If you then resolve X, they still won't use the product,
because X was not the real reason.
It's far more productive to work with people who already use the product
and try to resolve issues that they are actually faced with.

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way, unstable,
and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the compiler will
continue to get support, no one in the community knows what the library support
will be like. I came across an article where even Python wasn't chosen for a
project because of the eminent release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and
Clojure for other complaints people have expressed about D.
-- http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and

Looks like that guy has a thing for Lisp, so he came up with a bunch of
excuses why he shouldn't use anything else.
The thing with D 1 is that it hasn't really taken off. So it's not
unreasonable to sacrifice D 1 comaptibility if it can help make D 2
better, obviously in the hope that D 2 will take off. Note how the
title of Andrei's book is NOT "The D 2.0 Programming Language."

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way,
unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the
compiler will continue to get support, no one in the community knows
what the library support will be like. I came across an article where
even Python wasn't chosen for a project because of the eminent release
of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and Clojure for other complaints
people have expressed about D.
--
http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and

Looks like that guy has a thing for Lisp, so he came up with a bunch of
excuses why he shouldn't use anything else.
The thing with D 1 is that it hasn't really taken off. So it's not
unreasonable to sacrifice D 1 comaptibility if it can help make D 2
better, obviously in the hope that D 2 will take off. Note how the
title of Andrei's book is NOT "The D 2.0 Programming Language."

D1 was a bit of a line in the sand, anyway. There was absolutely no
effort put into making D1 stable before beginning D2. It's more of a
stable snapshot.

I'm not claiming D is in the wrong in its chosen path. This shows that other
languages deal with similar issues, but is one thing for someone familiar with
a language to not choose it for a project than it is to get someone to look
into a new language.

From time to time you simply got to throw away compatibility to make
progress, not only in programming languages. Just take the OpenGL 3.0
issue. Nothing has changed because of legacy.

Well, part of the problem is that you can use all of those arguments
against D (That includes the complaint about Lisp). Maybe not if you
just look at D1 or just D2, and many times the complaints aren't as
big an issue as they are made out to be once you start using the
language. And yes, Lisp did seem an odd choice considering why he didn't
choose the one of the other languages.

My take on this is he wanted to use Lisp and went looking for a
justification.

But he was considering Clojure which is a dialect of Lisp and didn't choose it
for the same reasons as Python and Ruby.

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its way,
unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said that the
compiler will continue to get support, no one in the community knows
what the library support will be like. I came across an article where
even Python wasn't chosen for a project because of the eminent release
of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby and Clojure for other complaints
people have expressed about D.
-- http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and

It's just one opinion. Others will use Python, because Guido van Rossum
is not afraid to fix, change, and improve things, even in point
releases.
I'd rather see D follow the Python path in this respect after D2 is
finished, than the C++ 'the world freezes' approach. At times, it is
inconvenient, but it also keeps a language and its library vital.
-- Daniel

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its
way, unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said
that the compiler will continue to get support, no one in the
community knows what the library support will be like. I came
across an article where even Python wasn't chosen for a project
because of the eminent release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby
and Clojure for other complaints people have expressed about D.
-- http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and

It's just one opinion. Others will use Python, because Guido van
Rossum is not afraid to fix, change, and improve things, even in
point releases.
I'd rather see D follow the Python path in this respect after D2 is
finished, than the C++ 'the world freezes' approach. At times, it is
inconvenient, but it also keeps a language and its library vital.

But Python is extremely careful not to break backwards compatibility from
one release to another. Breaking changes are usually introduced in
2 steps. In the first release with the new feature, the feature is
optional and activated *only* explicitly through:
from __future__ import feature
If a feature is removed, it's deprecated (issuing a warning) in the first
release.
The second release with the change has the new/removed feature. That gives
people time to fix their programs and try the new feature without breaking
anything for several months (a minor Python version is released each ~9
months aprox.). I certainly hope D2 doesn't follow the D1 path (before D2
was forked), introducing new features each release without notice and
breaking backwards compatibility.
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA FUE INFIEL, PERO EX POLOLO PAGÓ
-- TV CHILE

This has come up as one issue for adoption to D. D2.x is on its
way, unstable, and D1.x is getting the ax. While Walter has said
that the compiler will continue to get support, no one in the
community knows what the library support will be like. I came
across an article where even Python wasn't chosen for a project
because of the eminent release of Python 3. He also dismisses Ruby
and Clojure for other complaints people have expressed about D.
--
http://postabon.posterous.com/why-i-chose-common-lisp-over-python-ruby-and

It's just one opinion. Others will use Python, because Guido van
Rossum is not afraid to fix, change, and improve things, even in
point releases.
I'd rather see D follow the Python path in this respect after D2 is
finished, than the C++ 'the world freezes' approach. At times, it is
inconvenient, but it also keeps a language and its library vital.

But Python is extremely careful not to break backwards compatibility from
one release to another. Breaking changes are usually introduced in
2 steps. In the first release with the new feature, the feature is
optional and activated *only* explicitly through:
from __future__ import feature
If a feature is removed, it's deprecated (issuing a warning) in the first
release.
The second release with the change has the new/removed feature. That gives
people time to fix their programs and try the new feature without breaking
anything for several months (a minor Python version is released each ~9
months aprox.). I certainly hope D2 doesn't follow the D1 path (before D2
was forked), introducing new features each release without notice and
breaking backwards compatibility.

If you're not ready for a breaking change, why not just stick with the older
version until you're ready? Seems a lot simpler.

The second release with the change has the new/removed feature. That gives
people time to fix their programs and try the new feature without breaking
anything for several months (a minor Python version is released each ~9
months aprox.). I certainly hope D2 doesn't follow the D1 path (before D2
was forked), introducing new features each release without notice and
breaking backwards compatibility.

If you're not ready for a breaking change, why not just stick with the older
version until you're ready? Seems a lot simpler.